[gitlab] Update owners for new-e2e-installer

[KSerrania]

What does this PR do?

Updates owners for the new-e2e-installer to the @DataDog/fleet team.

Motivation

Correct notifications.

Additional Notes

n/a

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

n/a

Describe how to test/QA your changes

$ inv -e owners.find-jobowners --job new-e2e-installer
@DataDog/fleet

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 32278777 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

• tests_deb-arm64-py3
• tests_deb-x64-py3
• tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
• tests_rpm-arm64-py3
• tests_rpm-x64-py3
• tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-developer-experience

[KSerrania]

/merge

[dd-devflow]

🚂 MergeQueue

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

[dd-devflow]

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is next! (estimated merge in less than 47m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

[pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: b23d47d1-77c6-4920-b804-080edfb5b607
Baseline: e68edd1
Comparison: ed8a041

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

• ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
• ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
• ➖ = no significant change in performance

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.26	[-5.94, +5.41]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+1.27	[-1.68, +4.23]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.90	[+0.81, +0.98]
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	+0.68	[-1.75, +3.11]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	+0.22	[+0.16, +0.28]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+0.09	[-0.34, +0.51]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	+0.04	[+0.01, +0.08]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.02, +0.02]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.20, +0.20]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.05, +0.04]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.03	[-0.14, +0.09]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	-0.21	[-0.26, -0.16]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	-0.25	[-0.30, -0.21]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.26	[-5.94, +5.41]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.44	[-0.48, -0.39]
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	-0.72	[-5.60, +4.16]

Explanation

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".